Would the controversial retcons have worked better if the details were changed?

[adam436]

23 hours ago, CaptainHulk said:

However, that's made almost tolerable with Takaya being solid as David and Tim being a decent Leo and the former will be missed.

I think both characters sticking around so long helped too. 

If both actors had quit after a year or two, then it wouldn't have been worth it, but both surpassed the length of time Paul's known children have been around. Without them, I imagine we would have seen Andrew or Elle recast or we would have had a child from Paul's absent years (there's still time )

As I said, H&A, and to a lesser extent Neighbours, doesnt really introduce any new characters over the age of 30 anymore, so any stories involving long-lost children or historical secrets have to sit with one of the stalwarts who have already established history. 

Such stories could have been more easily done with the likes of Maggie, Ben, Tony, Gina, Beth etc. and perhaps even John because they don't have the long history and detailed background.

[CaptainHulk]

18 hours ago, adam436 said:

I think both characters sticking around so long helped too. 

If both actors had quit after a year or two, then it wouldn't have been worth it, but both surpassed the length of time Paul's known children have been around. Without them, I imagine we would have seen Andrew or Elle recast or we would have had a child from Paul's absent years (there's still time )

As I said, H&A, and to a lesser extent Neighbours, doesnt really introduce any new characters over the age of 30 anymore, so any stories involving long-lost children or historical secrets have to sit with one of the stalwarts who have already established history. 

Such stories could have been more easily done with the likes of Maggie, Ben, Tony, Gina, Beth etc. and perhaps even John because they don't have the long history and detailed background.

All of Beth's were accounted for, same fella. As were Gina's.

John already has Shandi who he has minimal contact with.

Paul having another kid just seems lazy (Corrie does it with Ken when they get bored, too). Then again I doubt Chrissie was watching him the whole time in Hawaii or Rio

(I'd better shush in case the writers are reading)

[adam436]

On 07/02/2024 at 02:08, CaptainHulk said:

All of Beth's were accounted for, same fella. As were Gina's.

John already has Shandi who he has minimal contact with.

Doesn't mean Gina or Beth didn't have a secret child when they were 15 or one of their existing children wasn't the result of an affair (it was a possibility with Ziggy/Maggie!) if the writers so desired.  

My point is that messing with the backstories and histories of these older characters wouldn't have been insulting to the audience because it wasn't messing with pre-existing continuity like it was with Marilyn returning in 1995 having supposedly just given birth, and watching her struggle/journey to become a mother in the late 90s when she already had a child out there. Or Alf being married to Ailsa for 12 years and not telling her that his first wife was still alive. 

But since the show doesn't introduce new older characters anymore, any of these long-lost children/long-buried secret have to be done with the existing older cast who have been around for forever. 

 

[CaptainHulk]

Gina I could buy. 

Beth made it clear that Jack was pretty much her one true love til his death in spite of his behaviour (playing faves with Scott, Kit and Henry, being abusive to Robbie and Mattie). That's not to say it's an impossibility. Said 1Child could have turned up in 2007 after her death but that would have just been cliche and more s*** the  Hunter-Holdens *didn't* need.

The Marilyn thing was insulting and I can only theorize the Tim/Heather thing was either reactive to Phil's own dirt or vice-versa.

Why, Writers?!

[Homeandawayfan.]

I guess I could buy the Irene one as many people have secrets they like to keep and it was years before she was introduced.

But the Martha and Marilyn ones made little to no sense, but I guess the writers are going by orders from the top.

[Luigi Severus Fletcher]

The Irene one kinda makes sense... Her past alcoholism and change of hair color in 1996 can also be used to back up the revelations about her past.

[Dag Dog]

21 minutes ago, Luigi Severus Fletcher said:

The Irene one kinda makes sense... Her past alcoholism and change of hair color in 1996 can also be used to back up the revelations about her past.

And it was alluded to, just never explicitly stated until 2015... but after all the assaults that happened whilst Irene was around - if not Kirsty, Melody or Bianca, then Chloe definitely - you wouldn't think it'd be Chloe's daughter that would bring Irene's pedantry over a blanket that wouldn't even exist anymore (thanks Adam Cameron's house fire circa 1994).

Granted, definitely the best of the retcons. The Alf/Martha one is an insult.

[Homeandawayfan.]

Both Neighbours and H&A seem to like rewriting history in recent years. Also in each respective soap Lassiters/Surfclub and Diner seem to be the main key focal points as opposed to their original main locations Ramsay Street and Summer Bay House/Summer Bay High.